09-19-1988 Planning Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

NIVDTBS OF THE PLMmiHG COIMISSICMi VI«6 SBPTBIBBR 19, 1988 Z0HIM6 PILE «1333-REBBRS COHTIN1 classification of RR-IB. Motion, Ayes»3# Nays, Cohen and Kelley, Motion passed. Kelley stated that he agreed with the neighbors to the north. He believed this project was a total infringement upon the 2-acre residential zoning within the City of Orono. He is afraid that a precedent would be set. #1334 SIDNEY BEBBRS 715 EORTB BEOffE ROAD CQRDITIORAL USE PERMIT-PRD CLASS III FSBLIMIHART SUBDIVISIOE PUBLIC HEARING 10:00 P.M. - 10:45 P.N. The Affidavit of Publicatior and Certificate of Nailing were duly noted. Mr. Peter Jarvis continued to present this matter on behalf of Mr. Sid Rebers. Mr. Jarvis began by addressing the issue of connecting the cul-de-sac. He stated that connecting the street would not be a project-killer. There are several solutions to this concern, however, connecting the road in his mind is the least efficient solution for several reasons. One reason is because of the requirement to remove more mature maple trees. Secondly, there is a slope condition in excess of 500*. Third, a 25 lot subdivision would not produce enough emergency situations to warrant an emergency vehicle access road. Mr. Jarvis elaborated on a development he was doing in a suburb of Detroit that had many more houses on a cul-de-sac with no secondary access road. He also felt that a cul-de-sac provided more security in that potential burglars would know there was only one way in and one way out. Mr. Jarvis hoped to elicit a positive response from the Planning Commission because the City's ordinances do not impose a 1,000 standard on private streets. City Staff had requested that the street be plotted as a 50* outlot. He would have not problem doing so. Planning Commission member Bellows stated that she took p- .de in the fact that Orono did take public safety into consideration. All it would take was one incident to justify having the road available. Bellows inquired was to why the proposed main access is being placed in a location that even Mr. Jarvis did not feel was a safe location, due to poor visibility? Mr. Jarvis stated that they purposely did not place the road further to the north because it would affect a larger number of properties on the east side of the roadway, as a result of traffic driving along Brown Road for a greater distance. Mr. Jarvis showed where the optimum location of the intersection would be. Planning Commission member Hanson estimated that there would be 50% or greater of the people in the development that would not travel south to Highway 12, but rather travel north to Highway 6. Jarvis stated if 12 vented north and 12 vented south, from a numbers standpoint, the access location would not be an issue. They did not locate the road farther to the south because they did not want to interfere with any accesses for the